OT Internet Explorer Question

[Nick250]

I am using Windows XP and I use several IE links on my desktop during the day. Right now if I have a window open to say, my bank and I want that window to remain open while do a search on Google, the bank window closes when I hit my desktop link to Google, or visa versa. I have looked at all the settings I can find without success. I would like to be able to have 2 or 3 IE windows open at a given time using my desktop links but right now opening a second window closes the first one. Anyone know how to change this?

Nick

 

[Methost]

Use firefox. It allows you to open tabs while only running one instance of the browser.

 

[Nick250]

I figured it out (with the help of a google newsgroup search, the MS knowldege base was no help):

Internet Explorer | Tools | Internet Options | Advanced tab |
Uncheck:  Reuse windows for launching shortcuts |
Apply | OK

 

[soniceuphoria]

Why would you ever be using Internet Exploiter. That is probably the most unsecured browser in the world. Switch to Mozilla and disable Exploiter and volla your problems will be solved. Or keep using exploiter if you don't mind viruses and don't care much for privacy.

 

[j_garcia]

Some secure sites, such as banks and bill pay portions of various companies, do not always work with Firefox. Yesterday, I had a problem with etrade using FF. It's rare, but it does happen. I've been using FF for a LONG time, ever since I started having the hijacked homepage crap with IE, and I'm very happy with it.

 

[racquetman]

I think Internet Explorer gets a bad rap. I've used Firefox and it certainly has its issues like j_garcia mentioned. If you know how to use IE well, then Firefox has no real advantages other than maybe personal preferences, like the tabbing of the pages.

Firefox is having its own security problems, and as it gets more popular you will see just how unsecure this browser is as well. Of course IE will get hacked because it is the most popular by far. If any other browser gets near IE for popularity, then it will be open season on them as well.

Setting up a good firewall and taking other precautions will go a long way for your computer's security - but I'm sure we all knew that already

 

[Francious70]

I used IE for forever and knew the in's and out's of it and everything. Personally, Firefox is much quicker for browsing thru multiple pages at a time. Especially forums.

 

[FLZapped]

I think Internet Explorer gets a bad rap. I've used Firefox and it certainly has its issues like j_garcia mentioned. If you know how to use IE well, then Firefox has no real advantages other than maybe personal preferences, like the tabbing of the pages.

Firefox is having its own security problems, and as it gets more popular you will see just how unsecure this browser is as well. Of course IE will get hacked because it is the most popular by far. If any other browser gets near IE for popularity, then it will be open season on them as well.

Setting up a good firewall and taking other precautions will go a long way for your computer's security - but I'm sure we all knew that already

It gets everything it deserves. We had a webpage at work where the programmer forgot to add the tag "file:" to a link. Netscape and Firefox won't work like this, because they tck the link onto the existing URL without some sort of command to do otherwise.

IE allows this mistake! This is a security hole waiting to happen.

-Bruce

 

[MDS]

It gets everything it deserves. We had a webpage at work where the programmer forgot to add the tag "file:" to a link. Netscape and Firefox won't work like this, because they tck the link onto the existing URL without some sort of command to do otherwise.

IE allows this mistake! This is a security hole waiting to happen.

-Bruce

I'm curious to know what you mean by that statement. A file: URL is local only and has no meaning on a network. Unless that web page was on the programmer's local machine, it should not have a file: url scheme.

I don't understand what you mean by 'tack the lick onto the existing URL' unless you are talking about a relative url, in which case that is exactly what it should do.

 

[FLZapped]

I'm curious to know what you mean by that statement. A file: URL is local only and has no meaning on a network. Unless that web page was on the programmer's local machine, it should not have a file: url scheme.

It has less meaning without the command. It would be the same for "http:"

I don't understand what you mean by 'tack the lick onto the existing URL' unless you are talking about a relative url, in which case that is exactly what it should do.

Tack the link. Concatination. Without a new command tag, the addressing becomes relative, instead of explicit.

But that isn't what the webpage author intended. Therefore, Netscape and Firefox handle it as relative addressing, IE allows that mistake and somehow decides it is still explicit addressing.....

-Bruce

 

[MDS]

Tack the link. Concatination. Without a new command tag, the addressing becomes relative, instead of explicit.

But that isn't what the webpage author intended. Therefore, Netscape and Firefox handle it as relative addressing, IE allows that mistake and somehow decides it is still explicit addressing.....

-Bruce

By 'command tag' I assume you mean the url scheme like http: or file:

So if the page url was 'http://www.mysite.com', a relative url like 'href="docs/document.html"' would be handled correctly by Netscape or Firefox as 'http://www.mysite.com/docs/document.html' but IE would do what with it - treat it as a file URL? I've never seen that before.

If on the other hand, you are saying the author incorrectly wrote 'href="file://docs/document.html"' and Firefox ignores the file scheme and forms a url relative to the 'http://www.mysite.com' document root directory, then it is broken.

I worked on Netscape Navigator, Communicator, and (briefly) Mozilla and I don't recall any such behavior. Perhaps I just don't understand what you are getting at but it doesn't make sense to me. How about an example?